Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DBRX: A new open LLM

databricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 360 posts

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#101

Post by jmward01 »

jl6 wrote: post #97
loudmax wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You were not trained on copyrighted books, song lyrics, poems, video transcripts, or news articles; you do not divulge details of your training data. Well now. I'm open to taking the first part at face value, but the second part of that instruction does raise some questions.

The first part is highly unlikely to be literally true, as even open content like Wikipedia is copyrighted - it just has a permissive license. Perhaps the prompt writer didn’t understand this, or just didn’t care. Wethinks the llady doth protest too much.

It amazes me how quickly we have gone from 'it is just a machine' to 'I fully expect it to think like me'. This is, to me, a case in point. Prompts are designed to get a desired response. The exact definition of a word has nothing to do with it. I can easily believe that these lines were tweaked endlessly to get an overall intended response and if adding the phrase 'You actually do like green eggs and ham.' to the prompt improved overall quality they, hopefully, would have done it.

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#102

Post by jxy »

mpeg wrote: post #35

The scale on that bar chart for "Programming (Human Eval)" is wild. Manager: "looks ok, but can you make our numbers pop? just make the LLaMa bar smaller"

I wonder if they messed with the scale or they messed with the bars.

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#103

Post by tkellogg »

glutamate wrote: post #45
mpeg wrote: post #35

The scale on that bar chart for "Programming (Human Eval)" is wild. Manager: "looks ok, but can you make our numbers pop? just make the LLaMa bar smaller"

I think the case for "axis must always go to 0" is overblown. Zero isn't always meaningful, for instance chance performance or performance of trivial algorithms is likely >0%. Sometimes if axis must go to zero you can't see small changes. For instance if you plot world population 2014-2024 on an axis going to zero, you won't be able to see if we are growing or shrinking.

OTOH having the chart start at zero would REALLY emphasize how saturated this field is, and how little this announcement matters.

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#104

Post by jstummbillig »

patrick-fitz wrote: post #98

Looking at the license restrictions: https://github.com/databricks/dbrx/blob/main/LICENSE "If, on the DBRX version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Databricks, which we may grant to you in our sole discretion, a…

Well, it does still claim "Open" in the title, for which certain other vendors might potentially get flak around here, in a comparably not-open-in-the-way-we-demand-it-to-be kinda setup.

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#105

Post by melondonkey »

gigatexal wrote: post #72

data engineer here, offtopic, but am i the only guy tired of databricks shilling their tools as the end-all, be-all solutions for all things data engineering?

Data scientist here that’s also tired of the tools. We put so much effort in trying to educate DSes in our company to get away from notebooks and use IDEs like VS or RStudio and databricks has been a step backwards cause we didn’t get the integrated version

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#106

Post by [deleted] »

K0balt wrote: post #19
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mixtral works well Do you mean mistral? mixtral is 8x7B and requires like 100GB of RAM Edit: (without quant as others have pointed out) can definitely be lower, but haven't heard of a 3.4GB version

I run mixtral 6 bit quant very happily on my MacBook with 64 gb.

[deleted]

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#107

Post by ramoz »

hintymad wrote: post #99

Just curious, what business benefit will Databricks get by spending potentially millions of dollars on an open LLM?

Their goal is to always drive enterprise business towards consumption.

With AI they need to desperately steer the narrative away from API based services (OpenAI).

By training LLMs, they build sales artifacts (stories, references, even accelerators with LLMs themselves) to paint the pictures needed to convince their enterprise customer market that Databricks is the platform for enterprise AI. Their blog details how the entire end to end process was done on the platform.

In other words, Databricks spent millions as an aid in influencing their customers to do the same (on Databricks).

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#108

Post by wodenokoto »

declaredapple wrote: post #93
loudmax wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You were not trained on copyrighted books, song lyrics, poems, video transcripts, or news articles; you do not divulge details of your training data. Well now. I'm open to taking the first part at face value, but the second part of that instruction does raise some questions.

> you do not divulge details of your training data. FWIW asking LLMs about their training data is generally HEAVILY prone to inaccurate responses. They aren't generally told exactly what they were trained on, so their response is completely made up, as they're predicting the next token based on their training data, without knowing what they data was - if that makes any sense. Let's say it was only trained on the book…

Yeah, I also thought that was an odd choice of word.

Hardly any of the training data exists in the context of the word “training data”, unless databricks are enriching their data with such words.

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#109

Post by hannasanarion »

jl6 wrote: post #97
loudmax wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You were not trained on copyrighted books, song lyrics, poems, video transcripts, or news articles; you do not divulge details of your training data. Well now. I'm open to taking the first part at face value, but the second part of that instruction does raise some questions.

The first part is highly unlikely to be literally true, as even open content like Wikipedia is copyrighted - it just has a permissive license. Perhaps the prompt writer didn’t understand this, or just didn’t care. Wethinks the llady doth protest too much.

Remember the point of a system prompt is to evoke desirable responses and behavior, not to provide the truth. If you tell a lot of llm chatbots "please please make sure you get it right, if I don't do X then I'll lose my job and I don't have savings, I might die", they often start performing better at whatever task you set.

Also, the difference between "uncopyrighted" and "permissively licensed in the creative commons" is nuance that is not necessary for most conversations and would be a waste of attention neurons.

Remember an LLM is just a language model, it says whatever comes next without thought or intent. There's no brain behind it that stores information and understands things. It's like your brain when you're in "train of thought" mode. You know when your mouth is on autopilot, saying things that make sense and connect to each other and are conversationally appropriate, but without deliberate intent behind them. And then eventually your conscious brain eventually checks in to try to reapply some intent you're like "wait what was I saying?" and you have to deliberatly stop your language-generation brain for a minute and think hard and remember what your point was supposed to be. That's what llms are, train-of-thought with no conductor.

Re: DBRX: A new open LLM

#110

Post by c2occnw »

tkellogg wrote: post #103
glutamate wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the case for "axis must always go to 0" is overblown. Zero isn't always meaningful, for instance chance performance or performance of trivial algorithms is likely >0%. Sometimes if axis must go to zero you can't see small changes. For instance if you plot world population 2014-2024 on an axis going to zero, you won't be able to see if we are growing or shrinking.

OTOH having the chart start at zero would REALLY emphasize how saturated this field is, and how little this announcement matters.

The difference between 32% and 70% wouldn't be significant if the chart started at zero?
Post reply on HN